The Instigator
roark555
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kevinsan007
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is creationism a valid scientific theory?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 78983
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

roark555

Con

My opponent may start immediately, or elect to allow me to start. Best of luck.
Kevinsan007

Pro

I'm very new to this process so excuse my invalid crap that may go into this;
Creationism and Evolutionism are both very valid there's. Creationism may be the VERY SAME THING as evolutionism. Let me explain, on the forth day of the beginning, he created the animals. So this explains pre-human dinosaurs. I know your going to say "But this was one day, this lasted millions of years" what I say on that is that a day to god could be 1 day or 100000000000000 years. no one knows what one day to god is in human days. In my mind creationism is valid, based on this description of my ideas and many others
Debate Round No. 1
roark555

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.
Theory: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. Its usage in science is very different from typical everyday language. Normally when people talk about theories, they put it in the same cashier as guess. However, when I say theory, I am talking about the scientific definition. Examples of theories include germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, and evolutionary theory.

In order for something to be considered valid, it has to have a well grounded basis . By this I mean, it must be in accordance to observed facts in reality. It must not, in other words contradict the laws of nature. One plus one equals two, and it will always equal two. Now when a topic like this comes up that makes claims about reality, we use the scientific method to determine truth from non truth. I will give a brief rundown of what the scientific method is ( these are not my words, sources below):
-Observe some aspect of the universe.
-Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
-Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
-Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
-Repeat the preceding two steps until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

There is an immediate problem. Creationism is not based on observed facts about reality. It is based on things like faith, which creationists often freely admit. It's a tradition, or it makes them feel good to be part of "God's plan" or whatever the case may be. The start isn't an honest inquiry into observed phenomena, it's a dishonest non-inquiry into claims of the supernatural. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, because a hypothesis has the basis of at least limited evidence. Creationism does, however, make claims about existence, claims which are testable and can be falsified. Here is a brief list:
-the universe was created by a supernatural being called Yahweh in six days, about 6000 years ago.
-It says that man was created by dirt, and then women by the rib of man.
- It says that a man named Noah brought two of each animal onto a large boat, because God flooded the entire world, killing everything else.
These are only a view examples, I just picked perhaps the most obvious ones. Lets look at the first one, the claim that God created everything approximately 6000 years ago. There is no dancing around it, this is simply not true. The earth is about 4.5 Billion years old, and the universe about 13.7 billion years give or take. There are several methods by which this is measured. To quote hubblesite.org, " Because all of the galaxies in the universe are generally moving apart, we infer that they must all have been much closer together sometime in the past. Knowing the current speeds and distances to galaxies, coupled with the rate at which the universe is accelerating, allows us to calculate how long it took for them to reach their current locations. The answer is about 14 billion years. " Another way is the length of time it takes the light from stars to reach us. The light from our sun takes about 8 minutes to reach us, but some stars take millions of years.
One of the main ways we know the earth is about 4.5 Billion years old is through various radiometric dating methods. Radiometric dating is essentially measuring the decay rate of certain isotopes. Different isotopes have different decay rates, for example the half life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, while potassium 40 has a half life of around 1.3 billion years. Though these various methods, we can calculate that the age of the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

The second claim is that God created all forms of life over the course of two days. This is also false. Life didn't just spontaneously appear in it's current form in one fell swoop, it evolved over the course of around 2 billion years. There is a mountain of evidence to support this claim, and I will only name a few and will hopefully expand on this later.
- The universal genetic code. All cells that we know of on earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
-Genetic similarities. We share more than 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 80% with cows, chickens about 68% etc. This suggests that that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
-Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Through random mutation, the bacteria the most resistant to a certain type of antibiotics will survive while the others die off. In the succeeding generations, most of the bacteria will be resistant to this particular type of antibiotics.
-Comparative Anatomy/vestigial structures/ homologous structures. On a surface level, animals that look very different from one another actually have a very similar physical structure. For example, underneath the fin of a whale, the skeletal "hand" is very similar to the hand of humans and chimps. Humans have tailbones .
Again, these are only a few examples, I will certainly expand upon this in the next couple of rounds.
Now finally, we have the issue of Noah and the flood. I will only point out a few obvious issues with this (more later, if you want).
- Gathering all the Animals. How could penguins, polar bears, moose, and plants have all gotten to the same place?
- The arks ability to support all the different species of animals. The ark was supposedly around 450 feet in length. They had to fit two of every type of animal on the planet, plus there's the issue of dinosaurs. How did they all fit?
-Maintaining animal life on the ark. Most elephants eat around 400 pounds of vegetation everyday, and drinks around 50 gallons of water and . How could they possibly fit all that food and fresh water into the ark for 40 days and 40 nights?

I think that is all I will state for now on the subject. I'm looking forward to your arguments lee001:) best of luck. This is an important conversation.
http://ideonexus.com......
http://hubblesite.org......
http://physics.ucr.edu......
http://www.talkorigins.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
Report this Argument
Kevinsan007

Pro

Kevinsan007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
Kevinsan007

Pro

Kevinsan007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
Kevinsan007

Pro

Kevinsan007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
Kevinsan007

Pro

Kevinsan007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Blazzered 2 years ago
Blazzered
Is this debate going to continue, or is Pro forfeiting?
Posted by roark555 2 years ago
roark555
I was copy and pasting some stuff from an older debate, and I accidentally included the name of my previous opponent, so disregard that.
Posted by Kevinsan007 2 years ago
Kevinsan007
Just to inform you I am a lot younger than my profile states........... I'm 13 haha
Posted by Tough 2 years ago
Tough
It is not a valid scientific theory but it is a valid scientific hypothesis.
No votes have been placed for this debate.